Are Parents To Blame When A Kid Gets Molested?

Should parents be blamed -- or even prosecuted -- if they allow their child to go on an overnight where he ends up molested?

Yes, says the head of the Boy Scouts council for Portland, Oregon. No, says me. No more than parents should be blamed if they send their kids to church and they get molested there, or at camp, or at grandma's house. Blaming the actual victim is taboo. But these days, it's all the rage to blame a victim's parents.

Jaycee Dugard is snatched from her bus stop? Her parent should have been with her! Oh, he was? Well, he should have been closer! Somer Thompson is kidnapped on her way home from school? That'll teach her mom to let her walk home! A boy is molested by his scout leader? It's all the parents' fault.
Remember how we used to say rape victims were asking for it? "She wore her skirt too short!" It was our way of feeling safe: If she brought it on herself, then we're safe because we're not like her! Then finally we realized: No one asks to be sexually assaulted. We were blaming the innocent victim. We stopped.

And then we turned around and started blaming victims' parents.

When my friend's daughter broke her arm, the local moms pounced. "Where was her mother?!" Uh, her mom was pushing her on the swing. The kid fell off. These things happen. Why were they so eager to blame the mom?

Same reason we used to blame rape victims: We're terrified something bad will happen to our kid. If we can distance ourselves from the parent of a victim, we can reassure ourselves that it won't happen to us! We care more. We are better.

Except sometimes bad things happen to good kids with good parents. This latest case takes place in Portland, Ore., where a former assistant scoutmaster has admitted molesting a Boy Scout back in the 1980s when the boy came to his home for an overnight. The now-grown victim is suing the Mormon Church, which chartered the troop, as well as the local Boy Scout Council for $29 million. The Council's defense?

"His parents should have known better." That's literally what the head of the council, Eugene Grant, told the jury.

Well, if his parents should have known better, I suppose I should, too. I'm the parent of two Boy Scouts who regularly go on overnights with their troop. True, these trips are out in the woods, but anything could happen there, too. And anything could happen at a piano lesson. Or Sunday school.

The best way to keep our kids safe involves teaching them about good touch/bad touch, telling them they can always say no to an adult, and adding that they can and should tell us about anything creepy, even if a (creepy) adult tells them not to.

According to the Crimes Against Children Research Center, those lessons keep kids safer than new sex offender laws. They certainly keep kids safer than pointing fingers at the people who are saddest of all when a child gets hurt.

TheTalkies:RelatedVideos

Learning When to Intervene as a ParentInstead of punishing their kids, more and more parents are directing the blame elsewhere. What kinds of children are we raising when we don't teach them to own up to their own faults, and why aren't parents holding their kids accountable anymore?

Are Parents the Problem?Instead of punishing their kids, more and more parents are directing the blame elsewhere. What kinds of children are we raising when we don't teach them to own up to their own faults, and why aren't parents holding their kids accountable anymore?

Tips for Raising Respectful KidsAre kids just nastier these days? Who or what's to blame? TV? Movies? Music? We talk to the experts to find out what parents can do to keep their little angel from turning into a little monster.

DHS Secretary Urges Parents Not To Send Kids Across BorderFaced with conservative attacks that the Obama administration is to blame for a dramatic influx of unaccompanied minors crossing the border illegally, Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson issued a plea on Thursday to parents of undocumented children: Don't send or bring them to the U.S. without authorization.

ReaderComments (Page 1 of 2)

Parents should not be blamed. This is just a ploy by perverts to make parents shut up while they rape children. They are hoping that parents won't sue, or prosicute if they are found responsible. This is bull!! Sue and Prosicute the hell out of these perverts. Better yet, hang them in public!!

To use the author's example of blaming the victim of rape for wearing too short a skirt, the truth is, sometimes there is a certain amount of victim culpability, or in the case of crimes against children, parental culpability. Does a woman deserve to be raped because she wore a short skirt? Of course not, but dressing provocatively while strolling through the streets alone at night is not the smartest decision a woman can make if she hopes to avoid being raped.

Is it the parents' fault if someone molests their child? Well, no, but many parents put their kids in harms' way with great regularity, and don't really think through the possible consequences. Example: Natalee Holloway. Was it her parents' fault she disappeared? No, but nor was it the wisest choice they could make, bankrolling their 18-year-old daughter's trip to a tropical resort in a foreign country for a week of drinking and debauchery with minimal adult supervision. Is it smart to let a 5-year-old play unsupervised in the parking lot of her apartment complex? How many single moms endanger their children by bringing new men into their homes?

A well-supervised child from an intact family with productive, healthy parents is at less risk. The choices we make as parents create the environments in which we rear our children; when our lives are dysfunctional, we create dysfunctional environments for our children, and they are at greater risk.

Although the idea of "get married, stay married" sounds great, it is not always for the best.Just because I am a single mom does not make my life or my daughters life dysfunctional and put her at higher risk for tragedy.Im sure other single parents would agree....

How can single women get married if they can't bring "new men" home with them? Don't demand they stay single and then demand they become un-single. You're not helping.

I can wear a bikini while prancing through a dark alley - it does not give anyone the right nor the invitation to rape me. If you say I am asking for it then I wonder just how capable you are of putting yourself in another's shoes.

Parents are always weighing pros and cons. When it comes to letting kids go away from their parents to be with other adults, there are many pros. They can be learning about other people's hobbies, interests, needs, and values; practicing appropriate interaction with adults; having fun, and more. There aren't many cons, but yes, one of them is the small but relevant chance that the adult could be a child molester.

When I was a kid, we hung out at the homes of some adults, and some of those adults touched children inappropriately. Am I sorry my parents let us go there? No. On balance, we benefited tremendously from those relationships.

The only thing I wish was that my parents had taught me more about what to do when an adult starts acting inappropriately. For example: 1. if an adult starts talking about offering you alcohol and you're still in elementary school, that is a danger sign. Get the heck out and never be alone with that adult again. 2. Adults may manipulate you/your friends to get you alone even if you try to avoid it. Leave immediately if that starts happening. 3. If an adult touches you, it is not your fault. You are being attacked. Make a loud noise and fight the jerk. Don't worry about getting him in trouble; he should have thought of that before he touched you. 4. If a child molester can do X and get away with it, he'll try Y next time. 5. If he gives you money or gifts, that doesn't make you guilty. You can still tell on him.

I am also in favor of teaching kids basics of self-defense, safe choices, and stranger awareness. I say awareness, not danger. Most strangers are not dangerous, but a little street knowledge will help a child to sense those who may be.

I would rather let my children go out in the neighborhood than keep them "protected," because I want the neighbors to know them. I want them to know what's normal for them, so they will recognize something abnormal. I also want them to feel empowered, not helpless, in case anything scary does happen to them.

At the risk of having my "Free Range Mommy" card (oh, you should make some up!) taken away from me....

The parents in question allowed their son to sleep in the apartment of a single man, unaccompanied by anyone else. Now, the article does not say if the parents knew the accused, a man named Timothy Dykes, but it does say that the man had filled his apartment with "exotic pets, an aquarium and games to attract boys from the local scout troop".

I grew up in the '70's and early '80's. I know that, had I asked permission from my parents to sleep over at the apartment of a single male (or a single female, for that matter) that they didn't know very well, without anyone else present, the answer would have been a resounding, "NO!" until they had time to really flesh out the situation.

I'm not on the inside of this one, and I agree, mostly, with what Lenore is saying - all too often, we want to blame the victim, or blame the parents, instead of doing the uncomfortable dirty work of accusing and bringing the guilty party to justice, and taking measures - including harsh punishments - so things like this never happen again.

BUT...

There are certain circumstances where the victim, or in this case, the victim's family, must be examined. As "Momma" said - a young lady is not making a wise decision if she walks through a bad neighborhood, at night, wearing a short skirt. A couple of days ago, there was a heated argument on this very board about holding a young lady responsible for her own "date rape" when she became seriously inebriated and accompanied a relative stranger to his dorm room. Not a very smart choice on her part.

We cannot blame the victim, but we also cannot allow the pendulum to swing so far in the other direction that we completely abdicate individuals (and groups) of any kind of personal responsibility whatsoever.

**If you wish to read the article that I referenced above, a link to it appears in another PD article on the same topic. I tried to post it here, but the "spam blockers" have prevented me. The article appears in the New York Times**

That response from the Council was a heartless way to absolve themselves from culpability and the responsibility of admitting that something could (and did) go wrong while a child was in the care of one of their leaders. How does the "parents should know better" attitude help anyone? Life is all about risk management and I doubt many people are seeing Boy Scout leaders as a high risk proposition.

I'm very dismayed at the comment by @Momma, which implies that anything other than the so-called traditional family creates a high risk environment for children. With a 50% divorce rate and 80% of all American families being blended families, this attitude is one of ignorance and judgmental ideals. This has nothing to do with experience, understanding or real research, only with making a judgment call on a family structure that doesn't fit a picture-esqe world view. Reality check: the mom, dad, 2.4 kids and a dog is not the "normal" family structure anymore.

Kymlee, I said a "well-supervised child from an intact family with productive, healthy parents is at less risk," and contrasted that to people with dysfunctional lives who create dysfunctional environments for children, which puts them at greater risk.

Reality check: no-fault divorce and out-of-wedlock childbirth create chaos in the lives of children. The intact, nuclear family may not be as prevalent anymore, but it is still the gold standard for children. It's important that we help the children of single-parent families, but not to sugarcoat the reality of higher risks faced in single-parent households.

I agree that letting a lone child sleep over at a lone adult's house requires due diligence (assuming the parents didn't have reason to believe there would be others along). And looking more closely, I see that the "parents should have known better" was a statement to the jury in this particular case, with the scouts no doubt trying to build a theory of contributory negligence. So it's not like they got out in a press conference and started parent-bashing and making up new, broad parental responsibility standards.

But, is this evidence of a trend toward such standards? I don't know, but I hope not.

99% of the time I would say no, but if I let my son go to the apartment of the " creepy adult guy who carries a stuffed monkey in his bag everywhere he goes, and who makes a point to sit right next to my son on a completly empty bus" and he gets molested then Yes it would be my fault.

You might like to know that the adult who abused the victim was very known by the family. He had spent more than a year as an integral part of that family. He was present on holidays. He was an active member of their church. He was the child's scout leader. The family knew him well (though not well enough) and they trusted him. When the abuse occurred, the child was NOT alone at this man's home. There were other scout members present. It was a "slumber party' of sorts. Even more sickening was the fact that the church AND the BSA were aware that the man was a pedophile. They had paperwork documenting his admission, yet they did not warn the parents.

If the parents should have known better than so should whoever made him assistant scout master. You would think the people putting him in close contact with young children - in a position of authority - would have checked him out. I don't see anywhere that it says this boy was the only one at the sleepover. I read the article that said even after the man admitted to molesting 17 boys he was still allowed to spend time with the scouts.The parents of the other boys were not warned about the potential for harm from this man. It was treated as a "private matter" by the church and kept secret. I think that's irresponsible on the part of the scout leaders! I don't see how it could possibly be the parents fault unless they knew about prior incidents. The man was in a position of authority, parents trusted the scouts and scout leaders to keep their kids safe.

It makes me so mad when the bad ppl come out with the stupidest(not sure if thats a word) ideas about how to get off their punishment. all child molesters should be given the death sentence no matter what..they dont deserve a second chance and they should be put in regular population in prison, why seperate them, they deserve what comes to them..It's not always the parents fault..god i should blame them for falling on my ass while rollerblading lol seriously, the judge should not even listen to that kind of crap!!!

It seems a little hypocritical to me to argue that parents bear no responsibility but the Boy Scouts of America does. Let me say from the outset I do not blame the parents, but I don't blame the BSA either. We are not talking about the parents blaming the molester--he is fully responsible -- we are talking about them blaming the BSA. They can't have it both ways. If they're saying THEY'RE not responsible because they thought they knew the guy and only let their kids go there because they trusted him, how is that not the same for the BSA? If you're going to start claiming that the Scouts should have known he was a bad guy, then it can be equally claimed that as parents they should have known he was a bad guy. Put the blame where the blame belongs -- on the molester.

Sheryl - If the evidence ultimately supports the claim that the Boy Scouts of America knew about this admitted molester's history and did not address the situation properly, then, yes, the BSA should be held responsible. There is an allegation that the BSA had thousands of secret files tracking "perverts" within their organization and yet some of these individuals were allowed to continue serving as scout leaders on the BSA's watch. If all of this is proved up in the Oregon lawsuit then, yes, the BSA should be held responsible, as should ANY organization that is responsible for the well being of children. Thousands of secret BSA files are being admitted into evidence in court as evidence of a cover up by BSA. The BSA says they kept these files secret because they were trying ot do the "right thing." Can you imagine an elementary school keeping secret files on teachers who have molested children but without telling the parents or the law enforcement authorities of such abuse?!

Except that apparently they DID know he was a "bad guy". They knew it and covered it up, and continued to allow him to work with children. It's no different than the whole Catholic church abuse scandals. If they knew and didn't act on their knowledge, then they are liable. Period.

Wow - I didn't see this post until you tweeted it today, two days after I left a doppelganger comment at FRK. Crazy!

That said, the comments by momma, etc are really disheartening. While it's best for a child to get as much love from as many people as possible, sweeping generalizations about marriage and traditional nuclear families are not of much benefit. I know many children whose lives would be dramatically LESS stable if their absent parent was involved or involved more closely, not to mention how unhappy the parents themselves would be and thus less able to do their best to love and care for their children. What is best for any given child is so nuanced and dependent on a bajillion different factors, so claiming that one way is best and hence putting down all other ways is unhelpful and serves to perpetuate unfair stigmatization of other types of families. There is no evidence I've ever heard of that the children of single parents are abducted/abused/raped by non-family members any more often than children in so-called "intact" families.

It's also appalling that anyone still transfers blame onto a victim because of their behavior, whatever it is. Short skirts, dark alleys, drinking, boy scout overnights, etc don't actually put someone at risk. BEING AROUND A RAPIST is what puts them at risk for rape. If we want to stop rape or molestation, we need to stop trying to control the behavior of the victims and or potential victims and then subsequently blame them when something bad happens and start pointing the finger where it belongs - at the perpetrators. I understand that this tendency is a reponse of fear - if that person did something to deserve it well then it won't happen to me because I wouldn't do that - but this response is insidious in terms of its wide-reaching social effects, lack of simple compassion for victims and the way it lets rapists/molesters off the hook for their own evil deeds.

We need to ask ourselves the very difficult questions of what happened in these people's lives that they could commit such an atrocity and how can we prevent that from happening to or within others. We need to start focusing rape/molestation prevention programs on the offenders instead of the victims. (Why are there so many self-defense classes for women but I've never heard of any form of education for men that tells them how to obtain consent every time and how to deal with aggression and feelings of powerlesness?) We need to stop pointing fingers at what the victims could have done differently and turn them around on ourselves and figure out how we can begin make a culture where rape and molestation isn't excused because it was the victim's fault for not making "wise choices." No choice anyone makes is permission for anyone to violate them. Period.

Which is better - getting home safely, or being able to blame someone else for getting raped?

As for classes for men to learn not to be rapists . . . great idea . . . but which men are likely to attend (voluntarily)?

I agree with you regarding Momma's comments. Maybe my kids would be better off with a loving, caring, kind father in the home. But they don't have one, and since I don't plan on dating while they are young, they probably won't have one. Once a child is in this world, the focus needs to be on how to best meet her needs, whatever her family structure, and however it got that way.